Talk:Male contraceptive

Original research

As with male oral contraceptive, I have moved the most obvious original research and unverified claims here. Joie de Vivre 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Removed content:

• Other new male contraceptives act once the sperm have entered the female reproductive tract. Some interfere with the sperms’ ability to swim properly, while others prevent sperm from recognizing or binding to an egg.

(Regarding heat-based contraception) -- While some very small studies have found certain heating regimens to be effective and reversible, there is currently no interest in funding larger studies.

Drugs targeting this phase of sperm development would become effective faster. Two pharmaceuticals are testing small, easily synthesized drug compound candidates.

According to the Birth control page: the withdrawl method with perfect use has a 1% lower average failure rate than the female condom (4%) and a 1% higher failure rate with typical use (22%). It therefore seems unreasonable to have the statement "(although medical professionals do not regard 'pulling out' as an effective method of contraception)" especially since the claim has no relevant source. It may be worthy to point out, however, that the resposibility for "pulling out" may not only be a male responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.75.91 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't much care about you removing from the lead the fact that health professionals disregard the pull-out method as a valid contraception method, though that material should be covered somewhere in the article. But you have not justified restoring all of the material that I reverted, which is why I reverted again. If I need to bring this matter to the attention of WP:MED editors, such as Jmh649 (Doc James), I will. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to take the matter to the attention of such editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.75.91 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am one such editor. And your claim here seem completely off to me. I will now alert WP:MED to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, by the way, is on vacation. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Posted at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit and Flyer22's response, the CDC document only mentions the withdrawal method in a table, indicating a typical failure rate of 22% in one year, and a "perfect use" failure rate of 4%. The document does not mention whether medical professionals regard it as an effective method.

The currently used source has a subpage about withdrawal. (The subpage indicates a typical failure rate of 27% per year, and a perfect use failure rate of 4%.) The website does not seem to imply that medical professionals do not regard the method as effective. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to use high quality references. This is not one of those Malecontraceptives.org Agree we need a ref for "although medical professionals do not regard 'pulling out' as an effective method of contraception" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Axl and Jmh649 (Doc James). I think it's clear that I was not claiming that any sources in the article state that medical professionals regard the pull-out method as ineffective. I objected to the IP restoring all the material he did, along with removing the aforementioned bit about what health professionals think of the pull-out method. As you saw, I noted at WP:MED: "Perhaps the phrasing that the IP objected to was worded a bit strongly, but there are many health professionals that recommend against the pull-out method or call it outright ineffective, and not just against sexually transmitted infections but with regard to preventing pregnancy as well." I also obviously objected to the IP stating that the pull-out method is 96% effective; sources clearly vary on that report. 96% effective against pregnancy is quite high; if it were normally that effective, then I think, when it comes to preventing pregnancy, health professionals would recommend it as commonly as they recommend condoms. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Then surely the first line of the second section "The withdrawal method has a failure rate of about 4% per year if used correctly at every act of intercourse." is wrong? Furthermore, if you check the source for the page on birth control or the "Chance of pregnancy during first year of use" table on the same page, my claim to 96% effectiveness if done correctly is supported. It seems most of the disagreement with this data is from some variety of taboo associated with the subject. 92.4.164.233 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Like WhatamIdoing stated at WP:MED, you are talking about "perfect use" (which is also what I figured you meant). Sources are often careful to distinguish between "perfect use," average use, and whatever other use regarding the pull-out method (as also indicated by the Coitus interruptus article). I don't know what taboos you are referring (I have none regarding the matter); I reiterate that I am going by what WP:Reliable sources state. Again, various health sources recommend against the pull-out method, or call it ineffective or unreliable, with regard to preventing pregnancy. For example, this the Mayo Clinic source states: "Using the withdrawal method for birth control requires self-control. Even then, the withdrawal method as typically used isn't an especially effective form of birth control. Sperm may enter the vagina if withdrawal isn't properly timed or if pre-ejaculation fluid contains sperm. The withdrawal method doesn't offer protection from sexually transmitted infections (STIs)." See this and this scholarly source for similar statements. The vast majority of health sources commenting on the pull-out method, at least from what I have seen for years, don't at all indicate that it's anywhere near as effective as condoms. Once again, I don't mind that you removed the aforementioned line from the lead. My point is simply that there are reliable health sources that recommend against the pull-out method and/or call it ineffective or unreliable, and that this should be noted somewhere in the Male contraceptive article.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Bots signed your username for you above, and so did I regarding your latest above comment. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Overall good inclusion of recent and past research on methods being studied and introduced. Milliedawg (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Radio-controlled 'tap' contraceptive

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn13232-radiocontrolled-sperm-tap-turns-off-vasectomies.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.91.13 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Injection

From what I've read lately there is a hormonal contraceptive almost ready to go onto the market, should this be mentioned in the article? cyclosarin (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reduced abortion rates

An interesting issue surrounding new methods of male contraception would be to determine whether they could ever contribute to reducing the number of abortions in countries where the abortion rate is especially alarming. It makes sense that if men don't ejaculate for chemical or environmental reasons, women would have much less chances of getting pregnant, and consequently of obtaining an abortion. ADM (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Some of the material in Male oral contraceptive duplicates material here, and there isn't enough material there to form much of an article. Since they both primarily cover experimental forms of male contraception, suggest that it be merged into this article. Zodon (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Qustion of placement

Given that the more informative Gossypol article indicates the WHO has suggested ending research, should this be in the Abandoned Research section? -Tom July 1, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.182 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RISUG

I'm seeing a claim that RISUG is different from Vasalgel in some way, but this is not what sources say. Vasalgel is a brand name of RISUG, being tested and marketed in the USA. As such, it should be mentioned as a form of RISUG, both here and in the RISUG article. It's a polymer gel injected into the vas deferens, causing reversible sterility (bayer aspirin vs. generic aspirin comes to mind). If the polymer gel is of a different formulation, that would be worth noting, but it hardly makes it a separate method. If anyone can come up with enough material to write a separate article on Vasalgel that might also be good. Mwenechanga (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Male contraceptive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728100517/http://www.therenaissanceman.org/images/DIOSCORIDES-Books_2_-_4.doc to http://www.therenaissanceman.org/images/DIOSCORIDES-Books_2_-_4.doc
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://imn.gcnpublishing.com/fileadmin/content_pdf/obn/archive_pdf/vol42iss9/70395_main.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a missing link to 'unintended pregnancy' under the impacts section. Milliedawg (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinion poll

I would like to add a table showing the opinion of men around whether or not they would or would not take a male contraceptive, I think it is important yet it is not included in the article. ChefBear01 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Having looked and found a opinion poll I can see a difficulty in adding an opinion poll as there are varying numbers involved, I would appreciate any advice as to how I can solve this problem.ChefBear01 (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Aspects

Hello! I noticed that even though there is a discussion on the impact of the advancements with male contraceptives, there is not yet a mention of the cultural aspects and limits to male birth control access and the reliance (maybe percentages) of overall birth control on female contraceptives. This inclusion could help before the section of 'Impacts' to give better context for the current research and methods actively used. Milliedawg (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility

There should be the inclusion of how accessible male birth control to people. Would be helpful for people seeking information on the subject to also be able to easily access information on where the methods are available, such as through organizations for free (maybe applicable to physical forms such as condoms) or whether it requires an appointment (more applicable for surgical methods) at a medical facility. Milliedawg (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Image(s)

Missing Citation on the Image of condom. Milliedawg (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Milliedawg (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Milliedawg.

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 20 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angiesyz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ArlenSanchez.

— Assignment last updated by Aksgpp3131 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a novel article written by Nieschlag, E. and Nieschlag, S. conclusively summarizes why male contraception development is necessary for the public, which deserves a particular section around this topic on the Wikipedia page.

Adding more images to the page. For example, the physiological mechanism of vasectomy or how the male contraceptive development has been approached as of 2023, particularly from a neurological and hormonal perspective, etc.

Make an update to the page, presenting the contraceptive landscape in 2023.

Removed unsupported historical ethnobotany section

I have just removed a large paragraph discussing plants used historically for contraception, since almost none of the citations at all supported the claims being made, and most were just random citations to completely unrelated topics. Some of the citations that were slightly related, upon closer inspection, actually listed the plants in question as aborifacients, which is significantly different. I am copying the removed text below, in case someone else would like to do the necessary research into finding accurate citations for any of these claims.

"Contraceptives for use by men have been described in the writings of Antiqiuty. Dioscorides, ca. 40 A.D., described the contraceptive property of hemp seeds (Cannabis sativa) and rue (Ruta graveolens) in De Materia Medica, a text widely used into medieval times. One test in rats (20 milligrams of the 80% ethanol extract) found that these reduced sperm count by more than half. In medieval Persia (and in other traditions as cited) these herbs were used for male contraception, as well as Gossypium herbaceum (Malvaceae), Cyperus longus (Cyperaceae), Vitex pseudonegundo (Verbenaceae), Chenopodium ambrosioides (Chenopodiaceae), Aristolochia indica (Aristolochiaceae), Punica granatum (Punicaceae), and Sarcostemma acidum (Asclepiadaceae). However, the compound isolated from Gossypium, as well as other cotton seeds and okra (gossypol) has been abandoned for contraceptive use because it was found to cause permanent infertility in ten to twenty percent of users.

In Indian traditional medicine, uses of the neem tree were described in Ayurvedic medicine, by Sushruta and in the Rasarathasamucchaya, Sarangadhara, Bhavaprakasha and Bhisagya Ratnavali. Held traditionally to have antifertility effects, its leaves were demonstrated to reduce pregnancy rate and litter size in a test of male rats." Willmskinner (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Content problems with this page

History section: should explain WHY this topic has come to the forefront in the 21 st century in particular. Wuerzele (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Acceptability section is ludicrous: There are so many different forms of male contraception from vasectomy over condom to thermo slip, so acceptability cannot be generalized.

Lastly, readability is poor, with extremely technical subsections and divisions, Wikipedia:Citation overkill.... too bad for such an important topic !--Wuerzele (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, though I admit I'm disappointed to hear it. I have been the primary editor of this page this year, and have nearly completely rewritten it from top to bottom. I have the goal of nominating the page for good article status before the end of the year, so any other thoughts you might have on how to bring the page up to that standard would be appreciated. To respond to your comments below:

As for history, I'm not really sure how to answer your question of why the field is more prominent now than in the past, beyond what has already been mentioned. I believe it isn't a case of a couple noteworthy events bringing a field to prominence, but rather the continued efforts of lots of researchers, etc. gradually bringing an idea closer to fruition, and steady cultural changes that make the idea more appealing.

Fair feedback on acceptability. Those data exist on which types of products have higher and lower projected user uptake, but I shied away from citing all the details and statistics for fear of getting lost in the weeds. I'll make an attempt at pointing out acceptability numbers for key subtypes of products.

I'm sorry to hear that you think readability is poor, do you have any more specific suggestions for improvement? This alone doesn't feel like actionable feedback. I have tried hard to approachably characterize 50 years of efforts into categories based on how they work, but this unavoidably gets a bit technical. I feel that any further lumping would make make things more confusing rather than less.

As for citations, this is my first WP:MED article, so I erred on the side of including more citations rather than less, for two reasons. 1) with a topic like this that is potentially controversial, I wanted to give ample support to broad claims that might otherwise be criticized as opinions. 2) To give scientists who might be interested in looking more deeply into one of these projects a starting point for further reading. I'm open to the bundling approach, but I didn't know it existed until reading the link in your comment. It seems a bit labor intensive, but I'll try it for the more heavily cited sentences. Is there a way to make multiple citations on wikipedia show up as something like [8-11] rather than [8][9][10][11]? As a scientist, my eyes are so used to glancing past citation numbers I barely see them unless I need to verify a claim...

If you're also interested in this topic I would be eager to collaborate with you on further improvements to the page...

Best,

Willmskinner (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)